Bug 2412239

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9763756
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2412239-utest/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09763756-utest/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.


---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

C/C++:
[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a
     BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang.
[x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the
     license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the
     license(s) for the package is included in %license.
[x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.

[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: utest-devel-0^20250831.fb622dc-1.fc44.noarch.rpm
          utest-0^20250831.fb622dc-1.fc44.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpkj2fuwqf')]
checks: 32, packages: 2

 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
 
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 1

 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 3 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s 

Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/sheredom/utest.h/archive/fb622dc480a56cc53ac9562a4436281bef91c989/utest.h-fb622dc480a56cc53ac9562a4436281bef91c989.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 7a1bfe500698d04d1ca2413b4960c1e63c1c34dda12d1804dc53b259deb37877
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7a1bfe500698d04d1ca2413b4960c1e63c1c34dda12d1804dc53b259deb37877


Requires
--------
utest-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

Provides
--------
utest-devel:
    utest-devel
    utest-static

Summary:
========
 - should package be called utest or utest.h?
 - there in no pkgconfig or cmake integration, maybe ask upstream
   to provide this?

(In reply to Terje Rosten from comment #2)
> Summary:
> ========
>  - should package be called utest or utest.h?

Looking at README.md, upstream seems to use the names "utest.h" and "UTest" interchangeably. So the ".h" doesn’t seem to be an essential part of the name.

(If the header were also "UTest.h", one might make a case that lower-case naming was inappropriate, and the package should be UTest, but that’s not the case.)

I note that “The maintainer MUST NOT use an underscore _, a plus +, or a period . as a delimiter” in package names, https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_separators, so "utest.h" would not be a good package name, and there are no extant packages in Fedora named <something>.h. There is only one package, sandia-omega-h, that is named that way but with the period converted to a hyphen.

The only reason to consider something like utest-h would be if there were another somewhat prominent piece of software with the "utest" name, but a quick web search didn’t turn anything up.

I think I still stand by utest as the most sensible name.

>  - there in no pkgconfig or cmake integration, maybe ask upstream
>    to provide this?

I’m not sure this is very necessary for a single-header, header-only library, in the vein of https://github.com/r-lyeh/single_file_libs. (See also https://github.com/nothings/stb for a well-known example). These libraries tend to be designed to be simply copied around into the projects that use them. Many, like this one, don’t even bother with assigning version numbers. I’m not a big fan of that style, but it’s an intentional choice. It’s not that CMake integration or pkgconfig files would be wrong or useless here, but I don’t think that adding a build system upstream expressly for the purpose of producing these files (noting that CMake is specifically used only for the tests, not to “build” and install the header!) is something that is likely to be welcomed given the overall minimalist philosophy.

My immediate goal in packaging this for Fedora is to allow the submitter of bug 2403985 to run the tests for https://github.com/cutdigital/mcut. That project wants to download the header at build time,

  # 
  # Download and unpack utest at configure time
  #
  FetchContent_Populate(
      utest
      GIT_REPOSITORY 			https://github.com/sheredom/utest.h.git
      GIT_TAG       	master
      GIT_PROGRESS FALSE
  )
  
  set(utest_include_dir ${utest_SOURCE_DIR})
  
  […]
  
  target_include_directories(mcut_tests PRIVATE ${CMAKE_CURRENT_SOURCE_DIR}/include ${MCUT_INCLUDE_DIR} ${utest_include_dir} ${mio_include_dir})

but it is always used as #include "utest.h", so a small build-system patch to remove the call to FetchContent_Populate() and the use of utest_include_dir, along with "BuildRequires:  utest-static" (due to guidelines on header-only libraries) in the spec file, would be sufficient to get this working.

Sounds good!

Thank you for the review!

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/utest

FEDORA-2025-394b19afe5 (utest-0^20250831.fb622dc-1.fc44) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 44.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-394b19afe5

FEDORA-2025-394b19afe5 (utest-0^20250831.fb622dc-1.fc44) has been pushed to the Fedora 44 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2025-83344408de (utest-0^20250831.fb622dc-1.fc43) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 43.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-83344408de

FEDORA-2025-8c78065a81 (utest-0^20250831.fb622dc-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-8c78065a81

FEDORA-2025-8c78065a81 has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-8c78065a81 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-8c78065a81

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2025-83344408de has been pushed to the Fedora 43 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-83344408de \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-83344408de

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2025-83344408de (utest-0^20250831.fb622dc-1.fc43) has been pushed to the Fedora 43 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2025-8c78065a81 (utest-0^20250831.fb622dc-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.